On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:32:24 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:57:16PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > year (I think the info is available, right?) We could > >> default to strict for systems with year >= 2009. This may still prevent > >> users from getting the best out of their system, but at least won't > >> cause a regression for users of older systems where the native driver > >> has been used so far. I know it's not an ideal solution, but ACPI > >> implementations aren't ideal either. > > > > The problem with this approach is that we still end up with a large > > number of malfunctioning machines. Really, I don't think there's any way > > to handle this other than defaulting to strict, letting the default be > > changed at run and boot time and printing a message when a driver is > > refused permission to bind. Distributions that want to obtain the > > previous behaviour can change the default back. If we expect different distributions / user classes to set a different default, then it might make sense to make acpi_enforce_resources's default value a config option? > For the record we have changed the default to strict in Fedora's > development branch, for 2 weeks or so now, including in the recently > released Fedora 11 release and we've had 0 complaints so far. Well, if the number of affected systems is small, this is good news. But this is only 2 weeks and one distribution, coverage isn't sufficient to claim anything yet IMHO. That being said... if there's a common consensus that switching to strict and dealing with fallouts is the best thing to do, and I'm the only one objecting to this, then I am ready to admit that I was wrong and let you proceed. -- Jean Delvare -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
